JetOctopus vs Lumar in 2026: published crawl-and-log pricing vs a demo-first enterprise platform with GEO built in
JetOctopus tells you the exact monthly cost before you talk to anyone. Lumar, the DeepCrawl rebrand, bundles technical SEO, AI answer visibility, Core Web Vitals, and WCAG accessibility into one contract, but you find out what it costs only after a sales call.
JetOctopus
Lumar- JetOctopus publishes real pricing, 293 EUR/month for its base 500K plan with itemized add-ons. Lumar has no public pricing at all; every engagement starts with a demo.
- Lumar includes GEO and AEO tracking, monitoring how a brand appears in AI-generated answers from ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity. JetOctopus has no equivalent; its AI features track bot crawl behavior, not answer citations.
- JetOctopus's log analyzer tracks 40+ bots including GPTBot, ClaudeBot, and PerplexityBot through direct server log ingestion. Lumar's own feature list does not mention server log analysis at all.
- Lumar bundles WCAG 2.2 accessibility compliance testing directly into its crawl workflow. JetOctopus has no accessibility testing feature.
- JetOctopus guarantees no user or project limits on any plan. Lumar's pricing page does not disclose seat structure since every contract is custom and demo-gated.
- Lumar's AI-powered issue detection can generate remediation code directly from flagged problems. JetOctopus surfaces issues and crawl data but does not generate fix code.
JetOctopus and Lumar both crawl large sites for a living, but they have grown in different directions. JetOctopus doubled down on server log analysis, ingesting log files from 40+ bots including GPTBot and ClaudeBot to show exactly what crawlers do, and publishes real numbers: 293 EUR/month for the base plan, with add-ons priced separately. Lumar, the platform formerly known as DeepCrawl, expanded outward instead of down: technical crawling sits alongside GEO and AEO tracking for how a brand appears in AI-generated answers, Core Web Vitals monitoring, and WCAG 2.2 accessibility testing, all under one enterprise contract with no public pricing at all. Neither tool's log-analysis or AI-answer-visibility feature substitutes for the other's core strength, JetOctopus does not track AI citations and Lumar's own feature list makes no mention of server log ingestion. The real choice is between a platform you can price out yourself today and a broader platform you can only price after a demo.
The tools at a glance
JetOctopus
SEO crawler and log analyzer for large sites that combines crawl data, server logs, GSC, and GA4 into one platform with no seat or project limits
JetOctopus's core argument is that most technical SEO problems are actually crawl-verification problems: you cannot know whether a fix worked, or whether Google and AI bots can even reach a page, until you check the logs. The platform ingests server files directly and shows which pages Googlebot, GPTBot, ClaudeBot, and dozens of other bots visit, at what frequency, alongside a JavaScript crawler that flags pages returning zero content after rendering.
That log-first approach is not something Lumar's feature set replicates, Lumar's own materials describe technical crawling, AI-powered issue prioritization, and Core Web Vitals tracking, but nothing about ingesting server log files. GSC integration with 16+ months of history and GA4 connectivity round out JetOctopus into a single pane for crawl-to-traffic visibility.
What JetOctopus does not have is any tracking of whether a brand is actually cited inside a ChatGPT, Gemini, or Perplexity answer. Its AI Search Visibility module compares bot crawl behavior, whether GPTBot can reach a page, against Googlebot, which is a crawl-access question, not a citation question. Pricing is transparent and modular: 293 EUR/month for the base plan, no seat or project limits, but no free trial either.
| Feature | 500K Plan 293 EUR/month (billed annually) | Add-on: Crawl from 138 EUR/month | Add-on: Logs from 86 EUR/month | Add-on: GSC from 43 EUR/month |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crawl pages included | 500K (or 250K JS) | Up to 10M+ | N/A | N/A |
| Log lines included | 2M | N/A | Up to 50M | N/A |
| GSC properties | 3 | N/A | N/A | Up to 1,000 |
| User limits | None | None | None | None |
| Project limits | None | None | None | None |
| AI bot tracking | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Lumar
Enterprise website optimization combining technical SEO, AI visibility, and accessibility.
Lumar is DeepCrawl after a significant expansion in scope. The crawl engine still covers redirects, canonicals, hreflang, structured data, and internal linking, but it now sits next to four other pillars: GEO and AEO tracking for how the brand shows up in AI-generated answers, Core Web Vitals monitoring, WCAG 2.2 accessibility testing, and AI-generated remediation code for flagged issues.
The GEO and AEO layer is the meaningful differentiator versus JetOctopus. Lumar monitors how a brand appears in answers from ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity alongside the technical crawl data, which means a team building an AI-answer-visibility program does not need a second, separate platform for that specific job the way a JetOctopus customer would. The AI-powered issue prioritization also scores problems by likely impact rather than presenting a flat list, and can generate fix code directly.
The cost of that breadth is procurement friction. There is no public pricing anywhere, every plan is "Contact for pricing," and the buying process runs through a demo rather than a signup form. For teams with the budget and patience for an enterprise sales cycle, and a genuine need for accessibility compliance or AI-answer tracking bundled with crawling, that is a reasonable trade. For teams that just want to see a number and start crawling today, it is real friction that JetOctopus does not have.
| Feature | Enterprise Contact for pricing |
|---|---|
| Pricing model | Custom |
Head-to-head feature comparison
| Feature | JetOctopus | Lumar |
|---|---|---|
| Server log analysis | Yes, core feature, 40+ bots | Not listed in feature set |
| AI bot crawl tracking (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot) | Yes, 40+ bots including GPTBot and ClaudeBot | No |
| AI-generated answer / citation visibility (GEO/AEO) | No | Yes, GEO/AEO across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity |
| JavaScript rendering crawl | Yes, up to 250 pages/sec | Not specified |
| Core Web Vitals / site speed monitoring | No | Yes, with historical trends and alerting |
| WCAG accessibility testing | No | Yes, WCAG 2.2 |
| AI-generated remediation code | No | Yes |
| GSC integration | Yes, 16+ months of data | Not listed in feature set |
| GA4 integration | Yes | Not listed in feature set |
| Public pricing | Yes, published tiers | No, contact for pricing |
| User / project limits | None on any plan | Not publicly disclosed |
| Starting price | 293 EUR/mo | Custom (demo required) |
Lumar bundles AI-answer visibility into an enterprise contract. AI Peekaboo does that one job self-serve from $50/month.
Lumar's GEO and AEO tracking is real and genuinely useful for a team that needs it bundled with crawling, but it only ships inside a custom enterprise deal that starts with a demo, and there is no way to buy just the AI-answer-visibility piece on its own. JetOctopus does not offer any version of this at all, its AI features are limited to tracking whether bots like GPTBot can crawl a page, not whether the brand is actually cited in what ChatGPT or Gemini answers. AI Peekaboo tracks brand mentions across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews with a read and write API on every plan starting at $50/month, no sales call required. Teams already committed to JetOctopus for crawl and log depth, or evaluating Lumar mainly for its technical SEO side, often get to AI-answer visibility faster and cheaper by pairing either crawler with a dedicated tool like AI Peekaboo instead of buying Lumar's full enterprise bundle for that one capability.
Read the AI Peekaboo review →Which should you choose?
JetOctopusLumarJetOctopusLumarJetOctopusLumarJetOctopusThis comparison comes down to how much you value knowing the price upfront versus how much you value a single contract covering more ground. JetOctopus is deliberately narrower and deeper: crawl, logs, GSC, GA4, published pricing, no demo required. Lumar is deliberately broader: crawling plus GEO/AEO, Core Web Vitals, and accessibility testing, at the cost of a fully custom, sales-led buying process. Neither tool's AI feature is a substitute for the other's core strength, JetOctopus cannot tell you if a brand is cited in an AI answer, and nothing in Lumar's public materials suggests it ingests server logs the way JetOctopus does.
Bottom line
Choose JetOctopus if the job is crawl-budget and log-verified bot behavior on a large site and you want a real number before you commit, 293 EUR/month with no seat limits is a known quantity from day one. Choose Lumar if the organization has enterprise budget and genuinely needs GEO/AEO tracking, Core Web Vitals, and WCAG 2.2 accessibility bundled under one vendor relationship, and is willing to trade pricing transparency for that breadth. If AI-answer visibility is the actual priority and the rest of Lumar's bundle is unnecessary, a focused tool like AI Peekaboo gets there without the enterprise contract.
Frequently asked questions
Does JetOctopus track AI-generated answer citations the way Lumar does?
No. JetOctopus's AI features track whether bots like GPTBot and ClaudeBot can crawl a page, which is a crawl-access question, not whether a brand actually gets cited in a ChatGPT or Gemini answer. Lumar includes GEO and AEO tracking for that specific job as part of its enterprise platform.
Why does Lumar have no public pricing while JetOctopus publishes exact numbers?
Lumar sells through a demo-first, sales-led enterprise process with fully custom contracts, so pricing is never published. JetOctopus prices by page and log volume with published tiers starting at 293 EUR per month for the base plan, letting teams estimate cost before ever talking to sales.
Is Lumar worth it if I only need technical SEO crawling, not accessibility or AI visibility?
Probably not on its own merits. Lumar's pricing and complexity are built around the full bundle of technical SEO, GEO/AEO, Core Web Vitals, and WCAG accessibility, and its own materials describe it as overkill for teams needing only one or two of those capabilities. A more focused tool, JetOctopus among them for crawl and log depth, is likely cheaper and simpler if accessibility and AI-answer tracking are not requirements.
Does JetOctopus offer WCAG accessibility testing like Lumar?
No, accessibility testing does not appear anywhere in JetOctopus's feature set. Lumar integrates WCAG 2.2 compliance testing directly into its crawl workflow, generating compliance reports and tracking remediation progress, which is a meaningful differentiator for enterprise teams with legal accessibility obligations.
Which tool has stronger server log analysis, JetOctopus or Lumar?
JetOctopus, by a clear margin based on published features. Log ingestion and analysis across 40+ bots, including GPTBot and ClaudeBot, is a core JetOctopus feature. Lumar's public feature descriptions do not mention server log analysis at all, focusing instead on crawl-based issue detection, AI-powered prioritization, and its GEO/AEO and accessibility layers.